Slide 1

La Crosse County Feasibility Study

Final Report

Presented by Michael Quirk, 2012 SHWEC Intern

Outline:Introduction: Assignment Anaerobic Digestion2. Method Categorizing Organizations How Data Was Obtained4. Conclusion Recommendation3. Results What Was Found Estimations

Introduction:Assignment: Research food waste in our community Feasibility of having anaerobic digester (AD)? Profit for county as well as energy, heat, fuel, etc. for others

Environmentally more favorable

Introduction:Anaerobic Digestion: Process to breakdown organic products and produce a biogas, methane. Three main types of digesters:1. Wet Anaerobic Digester Total solids: 8-12% Need a slurry mix in order to be pumpable Lots of manure or other substrate needed

Introduction:Anaerobic Digestion: Three main types of digesters:2. Dry Anaerobic Digester Total Solids: 20-30% Contamination not an issue Lots of food waste and yard waste needed Minimum 8,000 tons waste/year

Introduction:Anaerobic Digestion: Three main types of digesters:3. Small Containerized Anaerobic Digester Hybrid system Can take less than 1,000 tons waste/year

Introduction:Anaerobic Digestion:

Very scalable depending on amount of waste Biggest determinant: type of feedstock

Method:Categorizing Food Waste Organizations: Lists of all food processing industries, schools, and elderly homes were compiled

List of all establishments with food licenses in the cities of La Crosse and Onalaska

Each organization was grouped into a category:Categories: Food processing industriesSchoolsElderly homesFast food (sit down)Fast food (packaged)Small-medium sit down restaurantsLarge sit down restaurantsBar and GrillsCafesHotelsCaterersAttractionsTotal of about 400 organizations!

Method:How Data was Obtained: Random Samples from each category were chosen

Interviews were via phone, email, or meeting

Total of ~ 100 organizations responded Sample Questionnaire: La Crosse County Food Waste Project

La Crosse County is researching the feasibility of placing an anaerobic digester on their landfill site. This digester would breakdown waste and ultimately produce a biogas that can be used or sold for energy. The waste the County is primarily interested in is food waste. To assess how much food waste is actually out in our community, I am interviewing numerous organizations and industries that have a lot of potential to contribute. In order to get a better understanding of your organization's potential, I would like to ask you a few brief questions for our feasibility study. Questions:1. How much food waste (poundage/tonnage) is currently being produced per day or week from each branch or as a whole organization through pre-consumer waste (i.e. in the kitchen)? What percent of your total waste stream is composed of food waste?

2. What percentages or total poundage do you believe each of the following categories contribute to your overall food waste? Fruits and VegetablesDairyMeat Baked GoodsOilsPost-consumerPackaged Goods

3. What is currently the waste stream of these products?

4. How much do you currently pay for in tipping fees/garbage collection for your food waste? And for your total waste stream?

5. What institutional changes would be needed to separate food waste out of your waste stream, and what potential difficulties do you envision?

Overall, how difficult would it be? a. Easy, with simple and cheap changes b. Possible, with moderate changesc. Difficult, with lots of changesd. Impossible

6. How difficult would it be to separate out post-consumer waste (i.e. customer waste) from your regular garbage? a. No problemb. Possiblec. Doable, but a large hassle/expensive d. Impossible

7. What percentage of post-consumer waste do you think is comprised of food waste?

8. Is there any other information that you feel could be useful for this project?

Method:How Data was Obtained: Schools Production worksheets filled out by kitchen staff everyday

Two middle schools, one elementary (estimates for highschool)

Method:How Data was Obtained: Residential Calculations based on EPAs studies to estimate

Tennessee and Wisconsin recent studies to support estimates.

Method:How Data was Obtained: Post-consumer waste Calculations based on EPAs studies used to estimate food waste from restaurants, fast food, and large hotels

City of Chicago study to support estimates

Kwik Trip Kitchen and Bakery Items Kitchen: Cheese, meats, lettuce, bread, and other Bakery: Cookies, muffins, doughnuts, bread, buns, scrap dough, etc. Kitchen TotalBakery Total3110 lbs/wk6000 lbs/wk9,110 lbs/wk = 4.07 metric tons/wk473,720 lbs/yr = 211.5 metric tons/yrResults:Food Processing Industries:

Results:Food Processing Industries:All OthersBiggest Responses: Not much is being thrown away

Things get saved in freezer for another day

Anything unused goes to donations, farmers, or some other group

Results:Schools: Production worksheet results: Level of SchoolAmount of Food WastePer SchoolAmount of Schools In AreaAmount of Food WastePer LevelElementary39 lbs/wk170 lbs/mo13507 lbs/wk2197 lbs/moMiddle56 lbs/wk252 lbs/mo4224 lbs/wk1008 lbs/moHigh (1)

74 lbs/wk434 lbs/mo4294.4 lbs/wk1736 lbs/mo(1) Data estimations based on percent increase of average population of school size in Wisconsin when compared to middle and elementary level food waste. A 31% increase in avg. school size from middle to high school corresponds to the 31% increase in food waste at the high school level

Not a lot when compared to amount of waste needed

Only displays pre-consumer waste

All staff indicated that a LOT of waste at post-consumer end

Study by student this school year to investigate

Results:Residential:Population x 4.3 lbs/person/day = Total Metric Tons MSW/day 2240 lbs113,679 x 4.3 lbs/person/day = 218.22 Metric Tons MSW/day 2240 lbs According to a 2010 study, the EPA estimated that an individual generates 4.3 lbs/person/day. (U.S. EPA, 2010)

Results:Residential:The EPA estimated in same study that 13.9% of all MSW is food scraps218.22 metric tons MSW x .139 = 30.77 tons food waste/day= 11,200.3 tons food waste/year

The 2011 Madison Waste Characterization Average of 16.8% Food Scraps The 2002 and 2009 Wisconsin State-Wide Waste Characterization (Recycling Connection Corporation, 2009) 2002: 13.4% of all Residential (one-family homes) waste was food 2009: 17.5% of all Residential (one-family homes) waste was foodOther Residential Waste Studies The 2008 Tennessee Waste Characterization (Tennessee State University, 2008) Average of 16.5% Residential Food Scraps The 2002 Oregon State-Wide Waste Characterization Average of 15.6% of all MSW was Food ScrapsResults:Residential:

Results:Residential:100%50%25%15%5%2%Range of Residential Food Waste/ year (1)11,071- 13,9395,536-6,9792,768-3,4851,661-2,091554-697221-279(1) Metric tonsRange of Residential Food Waste Based on Percent Collected 13.9% - 17.5%

Results:Restaurants:Biggest Responses: Not much is being thrown away from pre-consumer side

Things get saved in freezer for another day

More scraps being thrown at post-consumer end

??

Results:Restaurants:Post-consumer Estimations When asked how difficult it would be to separate food waste from regular garbage, all responded, doable, but a large hassel/expensive.

Estimates based on a 2006 study by Cascadia Consulting Group were used. (Cascadia, 2006)

CategoryLbs food waste/employee/yearRange of employees (1)Range of total food waste generated/year (2)Number of organizations in La Crosse CountyFast Food2,19120-10020-9877Full Service 2,91030-15039-195125Large Hotels1,42120-15013-9520Rough estimations based on answers from interviewsMetric tons A study done in 2010 by the city of Chicago estimates that 59.3% of all restaurant waste is comprised of food scraps. (Chicago Department of Environment, 2010)

Results:Restaurants:Post-consumer Estimations Table based on all organizations within the county:Category100% Range (tons/year)50% Range (tons/year)25% Range (tons/year)15% Range (tons/year)5% Range (tons/year)2% Range (tons/year)Fast Food1,540-7,546770-3,773385-1,887231-1,13277-37731-151Full Service4,875-243752,438-12,1881,219-6,094731-3,656244-1,21998-488 Large Hotels 260-1,900130-95065-47539-28513-955-38Percent range collected based on range of generation/year throughout county (1)(1) Metric tons

Results:Hospitals and Senior Homes:Biggest Responses: Not much is being thrown away from pre-consumer side

Things get saved in freezer for another day

Plans are already in place for post-consumer

Now they have menus

Results:Other Options:Sanimax After numerous talks with organizations, it was evident an outside source was involved in a lot of hauling of organic waste

Company named Sanimax currently hauls over half of the organic waste for an AD system in Wisconsin UW Oshkosh

Take commercial waste: Walmarts (5), Festival Foods (3), etc.

Representative estimated 5000-6000 tons food waste/year within and near La Crosse County

Conclusion:Definite Options: Food Waste/year (metric tons) Kwik Trip Distribution 211.5 tons/year Sanimax 5000 6000 tons/year Total: 5212 6212 tons/year Both are enthusiastic about opportunity and are open to partnerships - Existing infrastructure at landfill

Conclusion:Unknown Options: Lots of waste is prevalent in the county, the amount of which is truly collected is an unknown:Category100% (tons/year)50% (tons/year)25% (tons/year)10% (tons/year)5% (tons/year)2% (tons/year)All Schools (2)26.5 13.36.62.651.330.53Residential Range11,071- 13,9395,536-6,9792,768-3,4851,107-1,394554-697221-279Other (Commercial, Restaurants)6,675 - 33,8213,338 - 16,9111,669 - 8,455668 - 3,382334 - 1,691134 - 676Total17,773 - 47,7878,887 - 23,9034,444 - 11,9471,777 - 4,779889 - 2,389356 - 956 (1) In metric tons(2) This does not incorporate post-consumer waste by the students and staff. A student will be doing a study of post- consumer waste for a high school this school year.

Totals of Food Waste Estimations based on Percent Collected (1)

Conclusion:Unknown Options: Other Unknowns:

- Stream of waste (other haulers)?

- How to separate? i. $$$ ii. Mandating iii. Tipping fee adjustments

- Once system in place, who will want to contribute? i. Better environmentally ii. Cheaper for providers?

Conclusion:Recommendation: After talks with AD vendors, a dry anaerobic fermentation system run by the county with Kwik Trip and Sanimax as long-term partners, would be recommended. (Blythe, 2012)

With KT and Sanimax = great start to amount needed

If only ~ 15% of all other waste was collected = easily enough to make system efficient

Conclusion:Recommendation:Possibilities: Byproduct of dry AD = digestate- Sell in exchange for feedstock to farmers = more solid waste

50-60% methane production = more profit for county - Partnership with WWTP? Other?

Once system in place = more interest from other organizations, schools, and whole community

Create benefits for separation

Conclusion:Overall: In the countys hands

Waste is there

Food waste in U.S. is rising every year

ADs common practice in other countries. - Coming to U.S. Can be great example of success and leaders of sustanability

Acknowledgments: La Crosse County Solid Waste Department- advisor Nick Nichols, Hank Koch

Advisor Professor John Katers

Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH)

All of SHWEC staff for the opportunity and resources

All organizations throughout La Crosse County Works Cited:Blythe, Amber. (2012, August 3). Telephone Interview.

Cascadia Consulting Group. (2006). Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. California EPA. Retrieved from http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/ciwmb_restaurant_composition.pdf

Chicago Department of Environment. (2010). Waste Characterization Study. Retrieved August 13, 2012, from www.cityofchicago.org/RecyclingAndWasteMgmt_PDFs/ WasteAndDiversion Study/WasteCharacterizationReport.pdf

Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm

Recycling Connections Corporation. 2009 Wisconsin State-Wide Waste Characterization Study. (2010). 3.2-3.3.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2008 Tennessee Waste Characterization Study. (2008). Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.tn.gov/environment/swm/pdf/swspfin1.pdf